Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 185 (8016 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-16-2014 9:33 AM
144 online now:
Aurelia, Coragyps, Diomedes, PaulK, Pressie, subbie, Theodoric (7 members, 137 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Ed67
Post Volume:
Total: 723,379 Year: 9,220/28,606 Month: 910/2,455 Week: 220/428 Day: 21/92 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Author Topic:   What's the creationists thought on this?
Pressie
Member
Posts: 710
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 76 of 136 (619532)
06-10-2011 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by JonF
06-10-2011 8:30 AM


JonF writes:

Although it's been pretty beaten to death already, a few items:

Woodmorappe did not look at 500 papers, he selected 350 dates from a lot fewer than 350 papers. He did not give any indication of how many dates he reviewed to select those 350, so a meaningful statistical analysis is impossible. His claim to have found "Over 300 serious discrepancies..." is laughable. I've read the original paper, and the majority of his "serious discrepancies" are not that at all, they're well-explained and well-understood. Steven H. Schimmrich wrote a critique at TalkOrigins, Geochronology kata John Woodmorappe, which is easily understood by the non-geologist and explains several of the "discrepancies". he concluded that Woodmarappe made many serious errors:


  • Selective quotations from the scientific literature
  • The presentation of data devoid of any geological context
  • Ignoring well-known limitations of dating methods
  • The use of a "shotgun" approach
  • The inclusion of obsolete data
  • The use of a small data set to reach sweeping conclusions
  • The lack of an appropriate audience

Glenn Morton plotted Woodmorrappe's dataset at Young-Earth Arguments: A Second Look. measured age against expected age. There's a lot of scatter, as you'd expect when the criterion for data selection is the existence of scatter, but the trend is clear:

Chuck77, it would do you good to reflect on the reliability of your sources.

Woodmorappe's paper is not online, but I have a PDF of it if anyone wants to read it.


Please, I would love to have a look at his "paper". If the moderaters could provide my e-mail address to you, I certainly would appreciate it. Woodmorappe doesn't provide any information, he just lies to the creationists.

I wonder whether Woodmorappe included all those dates obtained from geologists, provided in peer-reviewed articles on South African rocks, from South African geologists, in his 'research'. There's way more than 500 of them. Geologists and articles. Try tens of thousands.

I bet that Woodmorappe ignored that research.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by JonF, posted 06-10-2011 8:30 AM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Admin, posted 06-10-2011 9:26 AM Pressie has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 11388
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 77 of 136 (619537)
06-10-2011 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Pressie
06-10-2011 8:57 AM


Unless there are copyright concerns, if the PDF is email'd to Admin then I will post it here at the website.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Pressie, posted 06-10-2011 8:57 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Pressie, posted 06-10-2011 9:33 AM Admin has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 710
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 78 of 136 (619540)
06-10-2011 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Admin
06-10-2011 9:26 AM


Admin writes:

Unless there are copyright concerns, if the PDF is email'd to Admin then I will post it here at the website.

Thank you. I would love to see it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Admin, posted 06-10-2011 9:26 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Admin, posted 06-11-2011 7:02 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 5020
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 79 of 136 (619558)
06-10-2011 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chuck77
06-10-2011 4:47 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
For now i believe the creation Scientists account of the age of the dino's.

Why? And what is this account? What methodologies do they use to date fossils? What do they measure in rocks that allows them to attach a date to the rock's formation?

Btw Fossils don't come with dates on them. You cant date them. I suppose they date the rock? Can you date sedementary rock?

From my reading on the subject, scientists date igneous rocks. This can take the form of sedimentary layers, such as tuffs. These are rocks that formed from fallen volcanic ash. These tuffs are used to date the eruption. By finding a tuff below and above a fossil you can give an age range for that fossil (younger than the tuff below it, older than the tuff above it). Obviously, lava flows or intrusions above and below a fossil can also be used.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 06-10-2011 4:47 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Coyote, posted 06-10-2011 12:08 PM Taq has responded

Coyote
Member
Posts: 4518
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 80 of 136 (619560)
06-10-2011 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Taq
06-10-2011 11:46 AM


Dating fossils
One thing creationists love to be wrong about is "circular dating."

We can date fossil layers via various radiometric techniques, such as was mentioned above, by dating adjacent volcanic layers.

And if there are unique marker fossils in a particular layer we can then date that layer in other areas by means of those marker fossils. That is a lot easier and cheaper and much quicker.

Thus the creationists' (false) claim that we date fossils by layers and layers by fossils or some such silliness.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Taq, posted 06-10-2011 11:46 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Taq, posted 06-10-2011 12:51 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Taq
Member
Posts: 5020
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 81 of 136 (619569)
06-10-2011 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Coyote
06-10-2011 12:08 PM


Re: Dating fossils
One thing creationists love to be wrong about is "circular dating."

Indeed. If they start down this path ask them how scientists are able to date asteroids.

And if there are unique marker fossils in a particular layer we can then date that layer in other areas by means of those marker fossils. That is a lot easier and cheaper and much quicker.

Thus the creationists' (false) claim that we date fossils by layers and layers by fossils or some such silliness.

If you are aiming for a less confrontational response you could state that index fossils are used, but that they are also checked against radiometric methodologies when appropriate. More importantly, the age range for any index fossil was first established by radiometric dating. Prior to radiometric dating the best a geologist could do was a relative age compared to other geologic structures.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Coyote, posted 06-10-2011 12:08 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Admin
Director
Posts: 11388
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 82 of 136 (619673)
06-11-2011 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Pressie
06-10-2011 9:33 AM


I've posted Woodmorappe's paper: Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised

For those of you with slower Internet hookups, be patient, it's over 3MB.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Pressie, posted 06-10-2011 9:33 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Chuck77, posted 06-11-2011 7:33 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply
 Message 85 by JonF, posted 06-11-2011 9:08 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Chuck77
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 742
Joined: 06-06-2011


Message 83 of 136 (619676)
06-11-2011 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Admin
06-11-2011 7:02 AM



From Woodmorappe's paper:

quote:
B. Radiometric Violations of Superpositional and Cross-Cutting Relationships

Radiometric dates routinely violate common-sense relationships of field geology. It is almost self-evident that in a depositional situation the topmost beds must be at least slightly younger than those below them, and in an intrusive relationship it is the intruding body which must be younger than the body it cuts.

In writing about tuffs (obvious depositional accumulation), Curtis et. aLzs6 write: “These beds may appear to be pure . . . yet gave different ages from top to bottom; the younger age being on the bottom.” The rationalization invoked for this absurd situation was that the first-deposited were uncontaminated while the upper beds were subject to influx of contaminating detrital minerals.\

A tuff yielding a K-Ar date of 40-41 m.y. was found intruded by a dike and sill yielding K-Ar dates of 49-50 m.y.28’ A diorite whose biotite yielded a 157 m.y. K-Ar date is intruded by a quartz diorite yielding a 204 m.y. K-Ar biotite date.87 Violations of cross-cutting relationships are not exceptional. HopsonZs8 states: “This curious relationship, in which the pegmatites give mineral ages older than those from the host rocks, is now known to be common . . . .” These gross anomalies are explained away by claiming that the pegmatite gives older K-r ages than the intruded country rock because the country rock is composed of fine-grained minerals that are more vulnerable to thermally-induced argon loss. This is ccommodating, because many coarse-grained pegmatites properly give younger K-Ar and Rb-Sr mineral dates than the fine-grained country rock. Furthermore, Leach et. a1.288 found coarse grained schists giving ages near 72 m.y. whereas fine grained varieties gave dates near 123 m.y., and they appealed to “. . some other process ” to explain this.

A different set of violations involves Rb-Sr whole-rock isochrons. The Stony Creek Granite of 610* 50 m.y. Rb-Sr isochron age cuts the Monson Gneiss of 444* 15 m.y. Rb-Sr isochron age. *g0 Remobilization of Sr isotopes during metamorphism was the supposed cause of this.

285”Dietrich et. al. 1969. Op. cit. p. 3 12.

286Curtis et. al. 1961. Op. cit. p. 344.

287’Yates, R. G., and J. C. Engels. 1968. Potassium-Argon Age of Some Igneous Rocks in Northern Stevens County, Washington. UG 600-D246.

288Hopson, C. A. 1964. The Crystalline Rocks of Howard and Montgomery Counties, Maryland. Maryland Geological Suruey. 1964, p. 201.

289Leech et. al. 1963. Op. cit. p. 36.

290Hills, F. A. and E. J. Dasch. 1968. Rb-Sr Evidence for Metamorphic Remobilization of the Stony Creek Granite, Southeastern Connecticut. GA-1968, p. 137.


Well, I really just glanced at it but it does seem interesting. Pretty long read. He also gets into "Precambrian" rocks just after where I left off on the above comment. Is it everyones opinion that this paper has no merit whatsoever? Even with all the references and sources listed? Are you all saying that his entire paper is a complete bald faced lie?

Edited by Chuck77, : spelling

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Took out extra line feeds and added blank lines (paragraph breaks were a bit of a guess). Put in quote boxes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Admin, posted 06-11-2011 7:02 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 06-11-2011 7:51 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 89 by Pressie, posted 06-13-2011 6:39 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 90 by Pressie, posted 06-13-2011 8:48 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 24504
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 84 of 136 (619683)
06-11-2011 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Chuck77
06-11-2011 7:33 AM


Chuck77 writes:

Is it everyones opinion that this paper has no merit whatsoever? Even with all the references and sources listed?

Yes.

Chuck77 writes:

Are you all saying that his entire paper is a complete bald faced lie?

More an example of misrepresentation, quote mining and selecting the desired evidence while ignoring the evidence that does not support his desired outcome.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : .See official message content reprimand here. Also add off-topic banner (for lack of having a better banner).


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Chuck77, posted 06-11-2011 7:33 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

JonF
Member
Posts: 2578
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 85 of 136 (619691)
06-11-2011 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Admin
06-11-2011 7:02 AM


it's over 3MB

Yeah, that's because it's pictures of the document with OCR'd and selectable text lurking behind the pictures. That's how Acrobat handles scanned documents.

Is it everyones opinion that this paper has no merit whatsoever? Even with all the references and sources listed? Are you all saying that his entire paper is a complete bald faced lie?

Yes, as detailed at the links I already gave. Creation "science" is composed of lies and nothing else. Believe what you wish for whatever reasons make sense to you, but when you start claiming scientific respectability you're in an arena with particular ways of investigation, and creation "science" has consistently failed in that arena.

Number of refrerences doesn't mean much. Intellectual honesty and integrity, weight of evidence, logical thought… they count.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Admin, posted 06-11-2011 7:02 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12009
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 86 of 136 (619692)
06-11-2011 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Chuck77
06-07-2011 1:51 AM


Schweitzer
Purpledawn, can soft tissue last millions of years? Which Scientists HAVE found from Dino bones.

As has been pointed out to you, the soft tissue was mineralized. As Schweitzer et al wrote:

Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. (Schweitzer et al, Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex)

What no-one has yet mentioned is that the scientist who discovered this, Mary Schweitzer, is a former YEC who left the young-Earth cult as a result of her scientific studies. As she explains:

Like many hard-core young-earth creationists I didn't understand the evidence. When I understood the strength of the data, the evidence, I had to rethink things. (Schweitzer, quoted by Horner, Horner and Gorman, How to Build a Dinosaur)

If she had found evidence that she had in fact been right all along, surely she would have been the first to appreciate it.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Chuck77, posted 06-07-2011 1:51 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Chuck77, posted 06-12-2011 4:52 AM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 130 by Mazzy, posted 07-25-2011 8:54 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Chuck77
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 742
Joined: 06-06-2011


Message 87 of 136 (619756)
06-12-2011 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Dr Adequate
06-11-2011 9:12 AM


Re: Schweitzer
If she had found evidence that she had in fact been right all along, surely she would have been the first to appreciate it.[/qs]

Thanks for the info Dr Adequate. I never heard of her before and find this REALLY interesting. Are you SURE she was a TRUE YEC?

Without having read up on her whole story yet maybe she just had a change of opinion on the age of the earth? So is she a OEC now? But still a Creationist?

Im assuming that if this story checks out like you say, then she obviously was a mole working on the side of Evolution the WHOLE time. Brilliant! Insert laughing smiley here?

Edited by Chuck77, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2011 9:12 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-12-2011 5:16 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 91 by Pressie, posted 06-13-2011 9:28 AM Chuck77 has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12009
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 88 of 136 (619759)
06-12-2011 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Chuck77
06-12-2011 4:52 AM


Re: Schweitzer
Thanks for the info Dr Adequate. I never heard of her before and find this REALLY interesting. Are you SURE she was a TRUE YEC?

She describes herself as having been a "hard-core young-earth creationist", so I guess that that is what she was.

Without having read up on her whole story yet maybe she just had a change of opinion on the age of the earth? So is she a OEC now? But still a Creationist?

She's not a creationist any more, but she remains a Christian (per the link I've already supplied).

Im assuming that if this story checks out like you say, then she obviously was a mole working on the side of Evolution the WHOLE time.

I trust that you're being facetious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Chuck77, posted 06-12-2011 4:52 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Pressie
Member
Posts: 710
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 89 of 136 (619903)
06-13-2011 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Chuck77
06-11-2011 7:33 AM


Chuck77 writes:

From Woodmorappe's paper:

Radiometric Violations of Superpositional and Cross-Cutting Relationships
Radiometric dates routinely violate common-sense relationships of field geology. It is almost self-evident that in a depositional situation the topmost beds must be at least slightly younger than those below them,…

When the beds are deposited, yes, that’s what normally happens. We do have exceptions to that, too.

After deformation, this is not common-sense at all. Occurrences like recumbent folds and overthrusts are very common. So, no, the youngest rocks will not necessarily be at the top. Just on this quote, every geologist in the world can determine that his ‘paper’ is ridiculously flawed and won’t ever be accepted by any real geologist.

Chuck77 writes:

Well, I really just glanced at it but it does seem interesting. Pretty long read. He also gets into "Precambrian" rocks just after where I left off on the above comment. Is it everyones opinion that this paper has no merit whatsoever?

Yes, he doesn’t even know the basics of geology.

Chuck77 writes:

Even with all the references and sources listed? Are you all saying that his entire paper is a complete bald faced lie?

It’s either a lie, or just complete ignorance. Seeing that Woodmorappe (aka Peczkis) claims to be a geologist, I think that it is a complete bald faced lie.

He ‘s trying to mislead the faithful on what sedimentary rocks actually are, how they are deposited and how they get altered by geological processes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Chuck77, posted 06-11-2011 7:33 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 710
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 90 of 136 (619917)
06-13-2011 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Chuck77
06-11-2011 7:33 AM


Chuck77 writes:

Well, I really just glanced at it but it does seem interesting. Pretty long read. He also gets into "Precambrian" rocks just after where I left off on the above comment. Is it everyones opinion that this paper has no merit whatsoever? Even with all the references and sources listed? Are you all saying that his entire paper is a complete bald faced lie?

It’s amazing how Woodmorappe can lie. That’s all he can do. He probably thinks that nobody can get hold of the ‘references’ he lists. Unfortunately for him, we can. I’ve got one of the references he vaguely provides to try and deceive people.
In Table 1 of his ‘article’ he has a list of a few ages ‘expected’ and what was found after dating. His table has 5 columns, headed by, Age Expected, Age Obtained, Method and material, Common or Formational Name and Locality and the last column, reference.

On page 109 he lists the Cape Granite Suite as: >400, 330 and 238 ± 30, 236PB/U238 and , 238PB/232, Cape granite/ Republic of South Africa, 152
His reference is numbered 152: Allsopp, H. L. and P. Kolbe. 1965. Isotopic age determinations on the Cape Granite and intruded Malmesbury sediments, Cape Peninsula,
South Africa. GC 29: 11 15-6.

Woodmorappe actually forgets that some people can get hold of his references. The real reference is: Allsopp, H. L. and P. Kolbe. 1965. Isotopic age determinations on the Cape Granite and intruded Malmesbury sediments, Cape Peninsula, South Africa. Geochimica et Codsmochimica Acta 1965, Vol. 29, pp.1115 to 1130. Pergamon Press Ltd.

I’ve got this paper in my hands. The abstract reads:

Allsop, et al writes:

Rb-Sr measurements on six total-rock samples and associated mineral fractions from the Cape granite are reported, together with K-Ar measurements on two biotites. The total rock-age of the granite is 553 ±8 m.y. and the mineral ages (both Rb-Sr and K-Ar) are essentially in agreement, but suggest that a mild metamorphisms has caused some daughter-product migration from biotites and K-Feldspars. The apparent age of a cross-cutting mass of apolgranite is 500 ± 15 m.y. The Rb-SR ‘isochron’ relating to five Samples of Malmesbury sediments is remarkably linear, and the related problem of inherited radiogenic Sr in clastic rocks is discussed. It is concluded that the age of the Malmesbury cannot greatly exceed the apparent age obtained from the isochron,: 595 ± 45 m.y. It is possible, though unproved, that the granite was formed by the remobilization of the sediments at depth.

In Woodmorappe’s Table 1 on page 109 , under the Cape Granite Suite:

1. Expected age (Woodmorappe lists >400). The expected age was around 500 million years, actually. All in the reference Woodmorappe provided.

2.Age obtained: Woodmorappe lists: 330 and 238 ± 30. He lies. Allsop et al got ages of 500± 15 million years.

3. Method and material: Cape granite: 553± 8 my. Aplogranite: 500 ±15 my. Malmesbury 595± 45 m.y. Woodmorappe lies.

4.Common or formational name: Cape Granite and intruded Malmesbury sediments (the simplistic names).

5. Reference already given. Woodmorappe lies. And lies. And lies. Don’t ever believe anything he says.

Some creationists wonder why scientists think all creationists lie. And lie. And lie some more. This 'paper' is a good example of why we know that creationists always lie.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : Removed a comma that altered the explanation and meaning of the sentence.

Edited by Pressie, : Added a sentence

Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentence

Edited by Pressie, : Fixed mistakes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Chuck77, posted 06-11-2011 7:33 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Coragyps, posted 06-13-2011 2:17 PM Pressie has responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014